The Echo

Okay, I let my four-year-old choose today's song...

From comedian, Bruce Fine, an updated remake of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire."

Yes, Mark, some are listening...

From the NJ at http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100626001
June 27, 2010
Comments (6) Recommend (1)

I am writing to defend Christina School District’s use of referendum money to hire another administrator. The funds approved by the voters were to be used for salaries and supplies, and they will be.

Christina actually needs many more administrators who will be offered multiyear, six-figure contracts in the coming months. Among the positions not yet filled include Assistant Superintendent of Parking, Chief Executive Officer In Charge Of Clock Synchronization and Pencil Sharpening Czar.

With these people in place, wasted resources will be brought to a minimum through extensive oversight and micromanagement of teachers’ daily wasteful habits. This effort will be supplemented via three hidden cameras in each classroom that will focus only on the teacher. The new Director of Classroom Security will oversee the monitoring.

Disgruntled referendum voters should take heart, By next school year all their concerns will be forgotten, and the new Payroll Vice President will work closely with Christina’s new Retention Coordinator to make sure all new administrators receive the highest signing bonus in the state, something of which we can all be proud.

Mark Feil, Wilmington

1. "They perform a vital task for our community."
2. "With the right members, they can be a positive influence."
3. "Often a problem.  Could be a solution."
4. "I am not sure exactly what school board members do.  I know they vote on things -- I'm just not sure what they vote on."
5. "They can either make a district or break it."

Source:  2009 National Teacher Survey by Albert Nylander, dean of graduate studies and continuing education, Delta State University, Cleveland Miss.

Benchmarking...

Curriculum Compacting?  What you do with outdated textbooks...

How does this make you feel?  Impactful...

What NCLB is building for your public schools?  Scaffolding...

How you feel after accommodating both the Christian Club and the Druids:  Holistic.



Credit goes to the American School Board Journal, the Source for School Leaders, for this year's "Jargon Watch..."

Late this afternoon, Delaware became a School Improvement Grant Recipient to the tune of $10.5 Mil.  The application process for school districts is finally in play...  Tennessee, the second RTTT round one winner, still waits on their application to USDOE.

As of June 24, 2010, Delaware and Tennessee, Round One Winners of the Race to the Top competition, have yet to be awarded School Improvement Grants. Curiously, several other strong RTTT Round One finalists are also absent from the list of current awardees, such as Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and Rhode Island.

Jump here to visit the June 21st State Edwatch Blog SIG update: http://blogs.edweek.org/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=78&tag=school%20improvement%20grants&limit=20

You can view SIG applications for the winning states as of June 24th, by clicking through the link below.
http://neapriorityschools.org/2010/06/18/sig-grant-totals-by-state-2/

SIG Grant Totals by State

The U.S. Department of Education has approved School Improvement Grant applications for several states and has announced the amount of grant money those states will receive. The states that currently have approved SIG applications include:

Alabama: $58 million
Alaska: $10.7 million
Arizona: $70 million
Colorado: $40 million
Connecticut: $25.7 million
Delaware: $10.5 million
District of Columbia: $12 million
Georgia: $122 million
Indiana: $61 million
Iowa: $18 million
Kansas: $27 million
Kentucky: $56 million
Maryland: $47 million
Michigan: $119 million
Minnesota: $34 million
Missouri: $54 million
Nevada: $23.4 million
New Jersey: $66 million
New Mexico: $28 million
New York: $308 million
North Carolina: $91 million
Ohio: $132 million
Oklahoma: $39 million
Pennsylvania: $141 million
South Carolina: $50.8 million
South Dakota: $11.3 million
Texas: $338 million
Utah: $17.4 million
Vermont: $8.5 million
Virginia: $59.8 million
Washington: $50 million
West Virginia: $21.9 million
Wisconsin: $51 million

From the Newarkpostonline.com:

After years of the state’s more than $3 billion budget being introduced hours before it is voted upon, the proposed fiscal 2011 spending plan is available for public review a full week before it comes to the floor for a vote.


According to a release from the House Majority Caucus, the push for increased transparency came from House Speaker Rep. Robert F. Gilligan, who as a member of the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council (DEFAC), called for the panel to move its meeting up four days to allow the budget to be printed and publicly available a week earlier than it normally would.

By law, state budget writers must use DEFAC’s June revenue estimates to craft the budget. DEFAC normally would have met Tuesday, but Rep. Gilligan pushed for the council to meet on Thursday, June 17. “The public and several legislators have been clear in recent years that we must increase government transparency,” said Rep. Gilligan, D-Sherwood Park, the lead sponsor of a law subjecting the General Assembly to the state’s open meeting laws.


“Introducing a 200-page budget two days before it is voted on is not open government. The public has no chance to review the document before legislators vote on it. By having the budget printed and introduced a week earlier, it will be available for the public to review and raise any concerns they might have before we take a vote. I hope we’ve set a new precedent for having the budget introduced earlier.

“I want to thank Joshua Martin, chair of DEFAC, the members of the DEFAC, the members of the Joint Finance Committee and its co-chairs, Sen. Nancy Cook and Rep. Dennis Williams. Without all of their hard work, we would not be in this position today.”

The 228-page budget, Senate Bill 310, is the result of months of public hearings and open discussions by the Joint Finance Committee, a bipartisan committee of six senators and six representatives.

“We have spent the past six months going agency by agency, and in some cases, line by line, to squeeze every dollar we could out of this budget,” said JFC co-chair Rep. Dennis P. Williams, D-Wilmington North. “We worked long hours to make sure that we have a responsible budget that maintains state services to protect our most vulnerable citizens while making government operate as efficiently as possible. I look forward to a final vote and passage of the budget.”

Republicans have claimed they have been shut out of the budget process. They also believe the budget will lead to future gaps because it does not contain provisions, such as early retirement.

In addition, a number of unpopular cuts from Gov. Jack Markell, were restored.

http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=818583376512

Following last night's board meeting, during an interview with WDEL, Dr. Mackenzie, a seven-year member of the Christina Board of Education announced his plans to resign from his seat at the end of July. 

From WDEL at the web address above:

"The board is looking for a new board member, Dr. John Mackenzie is retiring in July after seven years of service.

Interested applicants should contact the Christina School Board for more information. The appointee will hold the position until June of 2011 when they can run for election if they choose to. "

New York Times on Educating Children With Severe Disabilities »
Rate Your State: Determination Ratings

By Christina Samuels on June 18, 2010 6:00 PM

If it's June, it must be time for Individuals with Disabilities Act determination letters!


Never heard of these ratings? I guarantee that your state's director of special education has.
When the IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, the law gave the Education Department the right to monitor how states were spending their special education dollars. The department then turned around and said, OK, states, in order to know how well you're doing, we need all of your districts to answer a few questions. To be more exact, 20 questions, including everything from the percentage of students in special education graduating with a standard diploma to the percentage of students served in regular classrooms to postsecondary outcomes of students with disabilities.

(Another set of 14 questions deals specifically with the part of the IDEA that governs the education of infants and toddlers. But most special education money is spent on school-aged children.)

Each state develops its own targets to meet in these areas, much like an individualized education plan, and is required to post its plan and targets on its websites. Based on how well they reach their goals, states are given a rating in order of severity: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, needs substantial intervention.

The department can require states that don't reach their goals to use part of their special education dollars to shore up areas of concern. The reports are always a little behind, so the 2010 determination ratings are actually for data collected for the 2008-09 school year.

The letters from the Education Department to the states are choked with legalese and edujargon. So instead, I recommend focusing on the tables that accompany each year's report. In the 2010 table you can see, for example, that Michigan had a goal in that report of having 80 percent of students in special education graduate with a regular diploma. In reality, 58 percent did. The state's most recent determination letter does say, however, that it meets requirements because of its progress in other areas.

These ratings are worth paying attention to. As I mentioned in a previous post, these are among the many factors that the Education Department says it will consider if a state requests a waiver to cut its special education funding because of financial distress. South Carolina (needs assistance in the latest ratings) and West Virginia (meets requirements in the latest ratings) are two waiver-requesting states.

A reader sent this blog entry to me last night.  I find it particularly interesting given all things RTTT, SIG, etc... 
From the Answer Sheet:  A school survival guide published on the washingtonpost.com, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/teacher-worst-year-in-the-clas.html?referrer=emaillink

Teacher: 'Worst year in the classroom' in decades

This is just one of the many desperate emails and letters from teachers that education historian Diane Ravitch receives each day as she travels the country talking about the folly of the Obama administration’s $4 billion Race to the Top and overall education vision. It was written by Gary A. Groth, a National Board Certified Teacher and Middle Childhood Generalist at Mariposa Elementary School in Port St. Lucie, Florida, who gave me permission to publish it:

From Gary Groth:

"As a classroom teacher with 30+ years experience, I just completed the absolute worst year in the classroom I have ever endured (and it was NOT the fault of my students--they were great).

"This year I was told what to teach, when to teach, how to teach, how long to teach, who to teach, who not to teach, and how often to test. My students were assessed with easily more than 120 tests of one shape or another within the first 6 months of the school year.

"My ability to make decisions about what is best for my students was taken away by an overzealous attempt to impose 'consistency' within my grade group. My school hired an outside consultant who threatened us with our jobs, demanded that everyone comply, and required us to submit data on test results on a weekly basis. If your class didn’t do well, you were certainly going to be in trouble.

"In addition, my class was visited at least twice a month by the consultant, two superintendents, principal, assistant principal, reading coach, math coach, and sometimes even more people. If I was not teaching exactly what they wanted to see, I was in trouble.

"My ability to have any academic freedom was completely taken away and my students were denied the best education I could provide for them. Please understand, my credentials are impeccable. I am board certified, have a masters degree in educational leadership, have been documented with the highest scores on my team, and absolutely love what I do. I want to be a teacher, but just can not continue within this toxic educational environment.

"This year I have tried to speak out against these many disgusting practices of testing, teaching to the test, or as you called it 'institutionalized cheating.' I have felt like a voice in the wilderness. The response has been, 'Get used to it. It is what is coming down the pike.'

"We are in desperate need of voices like yours to bring sanity back to education. Please, please, please continue to speak out about this debacle and help us restore the focus of education back to the child and NOT the test score. I will enthusiastically share your article with fellow educators in an effort to save the future of public school education. I just wish I could do more.

"If you have any other positive suggestions as to what I can do to help, please let me know. Thank you for speaking out. Let’s hope it is not too late."

Respectfully submitted,

Gary A. Groth
National Board Certified Teacher, Middle Childhood Generalist
Mariposa Elementary School
Port St. Lucie, FL

Presentation to parents undecided
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100618/NEWS03/6180339By NICHOLE DOBO •
The News Journal • June 18, 2010

This school year's trial run of Delaware's new computer-based assessment went well, officials said Thursday at the monthly state Board of Education meeting.

The Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System measures Delaware public school standards in reading, math, social studies and science. Besides determining how much grade-level knowledge students know in these subjects, the test gives educators real-time feedback on what areas students are excelling or struggling in to inform instruction.

"That's really a key feature of this," said Sylvia Gillpatrick, an education associate in the state Department of Education.

Parents and educators will get a better measure of student academic progress because the tests are given multiple times throughout the school year, and online tools are meant to help educators navigate the data and access tools to help improve student learning.

State assessments are used to determine if students are meeting achievement goals under the federal No Child Left Behind law, which holds schools and districts accountable for their progress.

The state's Board of Education viewed a sample test Thursday. State officials have not decided yet how they will present the new test results to parents.

Parents will continue to get notices at the end of the school year, but it's not decided if they can have online access, or if paper reports will be sent home earlier in the year. Each comes with a potential drawback: It is costly to print out papers to send home with students and not all parents have Internet access.

Nearly 200,000 preliminary tests were taken this school year by Delaware students. There were some initial worries about Internet speeds, but the average load time between when a student answers and when another question pops up is less than a tenth of a second, Cohen said. Students take the test using a browser that does not allow the child to go elsewhere online or otherwise compromise the security of the test, he said.

The online tests were developed with assistance from the American Institutes for Research, a non-profit behavioral and social science research organization. Educators in the state worked with the group to vet test questions to ensure the exam measures knowledge of the state's standards, said Jon Cohen, director of assessment for the Washington D.C.-based group.

The group won a $24.6 million, five-year contract in December to develop the assessment. The assessment replaces the Delaware Student Testing Program, which was used for the last time this school year.

Published in Print: June 16, 2010, as It's the Public's Data

Commentary

It's the Public's Data: Democratizing School Board Records

By J.H. Snider

Consider just a few of the questions whose answers might help a community’s leaders and citizens make better decisions about how to improve their schools:

• What has been said and written about school start times in districts with comparable demographics and financial resources, but better student test scores?
• What is the relationship between student test scores and systems for electing school board members in comparable school districts?
• How do superintendent contracts vary in comparable districts?

Parents, teachers, administrators, and taxpayers have legitimate reasons to ask questions like these. But it has been incredibly hard for them to do so. One reason is that much public information remains locked in the file cabinets of America’s more than 14,000 school districts. Another is that even if the information is posted to school websites, it may be posted in ways, such as a scanned document, that Internet search engines cannot read. Public information that should be available instantaneously and at no cost, like so much other information now available via search engines, instead takes hundreds of work-lifetimes and a fortune to gather—if it can be gathered at all.

Consider the nightmare in searching for school board legislative data both within and across school districts. In my own district, one of the 50 largest and wealthiest in the United States, when I want to see how a school board member voted during his term, I must read the entire minutes of each board meeting to extract the votes. And when I want to see how other, comparable districts dealt with a particular issue, it often requires so much time for me to locate the relevant so-called “public” information that it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible. It is more efficient for me to reinvent the wheel than learn from others.

Admittedly, the Obama administration and Congress are making great efforts to improve access to public school data at the district level. U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, wants data reform included in the next reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. On April 14, he opened a hearing on education data systems with the observation that “data is absolutely critical to education reform.” But the focus was on improved access to student-assessment data.

"In the age of Google and the semantic Web, what it means for a public school board and school system to be truly transparent and democratically accountable needs to be fundamentally rethought."The federal government needs to expand its agenda to address a critical barrier to progress: the failure of schools to post their data to the Web using a well-structured, standardized format—technically known as an “ontology.” Mandating local school districts to post legislative data to the Web in such a common, open, friendly format would take advantage of Web technologies that label and categorize stored data, thus making it easily searchable.

A precedent is Akoma Ntoso, an ontology developed by the United Nations’ department of economic and social affairs that enables the exchange and search of computer-readable legislative data across African parliaments. For example, after the data is posted to the Web, a citizen or policymaker can track malaria legislation for every participating parliament in Africa with a simple query. If the developing world can devise and implement such a technology, so can the developed world, including U.S. public schools.

Searchable, Web-based ontologies of this sort already exist outside the legislative world for many other applications, including for library books, diseases, product identifiers, product prices, product reviews, social media, and financial reporting. The financial-reporting data standard, XBRL, is an especially apt precedent for schools because governments, recognizing it to be a public good, have been mandating its use. XBRL has now been adopted by government agencies in every major developed country, including the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.

For a school board legislative ontology to work its full magic, it needs to be integrated with other school system ontologies for budget, demographic, and student-assessment data. Governments from local school districts up to the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau are already gathering this information in a well-structured, standardized way. The task is to post it to the Web using state-of-the-art semantic Web technology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once data is posted to the Web using an ontology, it becomes much easier to ask questions like the ones above to compare and assess school policies and performance. Of course, answering such questions can be done without modern search technologies. But when the cost of answering them increases by orders of magnitude, not only do fewer questions get asked, but those doing the asking are likely to be deep-pocketed elites and special interests. Since control of information is power, the result is a highly undemocratic public school system.

In the age of Google and the semantic Web, what it means for a public school board and school system to be truly transparent and democratically accountable needs to be fundamentally rethought. The time has come for data democratization to be shifted from the periphery to the core of federal education policy. Those with monopoly control of the data will fiercely resist, because it means giving up power. But there are no longer any good technological or economic excuses to allow them to hoard the public’s data. When data is “public,” it should be made public in the fullest sense of the word.
J.H. Snider is the president of iSolon.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy institute. He is a former school board member and has written widely on education policy.

http://www.edweek.org/

This video was created by a student at Newark High School as her senior project.  It was originally set to Sara Mclaughlin's "Eyes of an Angel," but it did not upload to Youtube.com.  I caution that it's a poignant presentation with some graphic imagery. If you watch the video, you'll understand why I felt compelled to share it.

Summer Meals Program
Learning does not end when school lets out. Neither does the need for good nutrition - which is crucial for children to have safe and productive summers. The Summer Lunch Crew provides nutritious meals when school is out for the Summer!

Who is Eligible?
All children 18 years of age and under are eligible to receive FREE meals. No need to apply for the program - just bring yourself and enjoy tasty & nutritious meals.

Christina School District Summer Lunch Crew Will be offering free meals at the following locations Monday-Thursday

Meals will be served:
June 21 – August 5, 2010
Breakfast: 9:00 - 9:30
Lunch: 12:00 – 1:00

Newark Sites:
Brader Elementary
Brookside Elementary
Gallaher Elementary
Gauger Middle School
Leasure Elementary
Smith Elementary
Shue Middle School

Wilmington Sites:
Bancroft Elementary
Bayard Middle
Palmer Elementary

Wednesday Family Dinner Night 
June 22nd – August 4th
5:30 – 7:00 p.m.

Wilmington Sites:
Bancroft and Pulaski

Newark Sites:
Smith, Brader and Leasure Elementary

http://www.christina.k12.de.us/ChildNutrition/2010/SummerLunchCrew.pdf

From the NJ:
Schools must meet students' diverse needs

Economics, race have an impact

By DEBORAH WILSON, PAUL HERDMAN and HOWARD WEINBERG • June 7, 2010

Delaware stands at the threshold of education innovation and reform with its Race to the Top win, a one-time $100 million federal grant that will allow Delaware schools to revamp their education policies and practices...

Education reform is a key issue on Governor Jack Markell's and President Barack Obama's agendas. Both agree on the need to turn around struggling and underperforming schools, and the state of Delaware, school districts and school leaders are now charged with creating strategies and programs that will do just that.


The question is: Given the changing demographics in our neighborhoods and the rising expectations of a global economy, are Delaware's public schools ready to meet the needs of children where they are and prepare them to be career and college ready?

We encourage the experts around the table to ensure that reform efforts include a problem-solving orientation that systematically considers cultural difference and the preparation of teachers who can connect, commit, and provide a culture of caring for diverse students and their families...

Finish It here:
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106070303

So, there's a seldom discussed potential loophole to RTTT with regards to the School Improvement Grant Program that may allow for some small measure of local control in SIG schools that would otherwise fall into the RTTT Partnership Zone.  The following letter, dug up by the NJ, is a best effort by DeDOE to close that loop.  Here's how it works, potentially:  If a RTTT Tier I-II school becomes a SIG Grant School before designated to the Partnership Zone, the local school district can enact one of the four required reform models (the same as for RTTT) without having to engage a "Lead Partner."  They are essentially acting as their own LEAD PARTNER. 

However, the following waiver could allow for DeDOE to insert itself into the SIG program and direct the selection of the model as well as hold SIG schools to RTTT requirements.  Of course, my primary objection is based upon the reasoning that RTTT is fundamentally flawed, the models are unreliable, the research limp... And that much of what RTTT seeks to accomplish could occur if Delaware revisited the existing education funding formula and adopted spending practices that support students first. 

I think I can best sum it up this way:  I recently read a report from Sept. 2009 about the Year 2 in the Vision Network (that would be the same Vision Network  that DE's RTTT Application --which has a two-year sunset on AYP -- lauds) in which this statement is written:  We must remember that significant comprehensive change like Vision 2015 takes time to show effects; research has shown that school improvement is marked by steady, incremental improvement over a period of time..." 

Let's stop talking about buckets of unpasturized cash and the cow from which its milked, and wrap our vision around the children drinkng the commodity.

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/2010/06/04/turning-around-failing-schools/


Turning around failing schools

June 4th, 2010, Author: Nichole Dobo, Categories: Education Reform, K-12, Race to the Top

Here’s a recent letter the state Department of Education sent to the U.S. Department of Education.

This is sort of inside baseball, but it’s of interest to staff at schools who are on The List (aka schools that face interventions), board members and anyone else who follows details of RttT.
Click on the jump to read the letter.
———————————————————————–
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Bold text was added by DelawareEd to draw attention to certain sections of the letter.]

May 24, 2010

Assistant Secretary Melendez
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Assistant Secretary Meléndez:

I am writing to request waivers of School Improvement Grant (SIG) requirements of Section II.B.2(d) (which prohibits an SEA from requiring an LEA to implement a particular model absent a State takeover) and Section II.A.8 (which requires an LEA, not an SEA, to establish achievement goals by which to measure progress) as set forth in the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program, as published in 74 FR 65618 (Dec. 10, 2009) and amended by the interim final requirements, as published in 75 FR 3375 (Jan. 21, 2010) for FY 2009 and FY 2010 SIG funds.

First, I am requesting permission for the Delaware Secretary of Education to select a SIG intervention model in Tier I and Tier II state Partnership Zone schools (a subset of persistently low-achieving schools), if and only, when:

1) The LEA and local bargaining unit are unable to come to an agreement within 75 days of negotiation. In this case, each party shall present its last best offer on the areas of disagreement along with a draft agreement to the Secretary of the Department who shall accept one of the last best offers or reject all of them. Should the Secretary reject all offers, the parties shall have thirty (30) days to confer and present the Secretary revised offers for re-consideration.

2) The LEA and local bargaining unit are still unable to come to an agreement within 120 days of negotiation. In this case, the LEA must select an intervention from the Restart, Closure, or Turnaround intervention models. [DelawareEd note: This leaves out Transformation, the model favored by the union.]

Second, I am requesting that state regulation requiring Partnership Zone schools to meet AYP within two years of implementing an intervention model apply to any Partnership Zone school (a subset of persistently low-achieving schools) participating in SIG. This goal is directly aligned with state targets in the approved RTTT application.

These waivers will assist the SEA and each affected LEA to reach the educational goals we have established under RTTT. Approval of these waivers will allow Delaware to ensure aggressive and timely reform in our most persistently low-achieving schools, Partnership Zone schools, in accordance with the existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the state, all LEAs, and all local bargaining units as approved in the Delaware RTTT application. The fact that all LEAs, all local bargaining units, and all local school boards signed an MOU with the SEA agreeing to these conditions indicates clear statewide consensus on these processes and goals.

I believe that these waivers will increase the quality of instruction for students and improve the academic achievement of students in the state’s most persistently low-achieving schools. Delaware’s measureable educational goal for these waivers is: all Partnership Zone schools will meet AYP within two years of model implementation.

The agreed-upon timeframes for RTTT MOUs indicates broad consensus on the need for serious and rapid reform in our state’s most persistently low-achieving schools. If the state were unable to enforce the MOU processes agreed to under RTTT, it is possible that some LEAs with the most persistently low-achieving schools would not implement any intervention model. The timelines serve as an incentive for both the LEA and the local bargaining unit to focus on the goal and not delay reform because of disagreements around insignificant details.

Moreover, the requirement that these schools meet AYP within two years of implementing reform indicates broad consensus and personal accountability. This provision encourages both LEAs and local bargaining units to institute aggressive, research-based, and significant reforms with a strong likelihood of producing swift success for our students.

Because the Partnership Zone schools are a subset of Delaware’s persistently lowest achieving schools, SIG schools will continue to serve the same population of students that the SIG program is designed to serve if the waiver is approved. The SIG program will only support Partnership Zone schools that fall into Tier I and Tier II of the SIG eligible schools. SIG awards will not be granted to a Partnership Zone school that is not identified in the three SIG tiers, including any Partnership Zone school that is not a Title I school and is not Title I eligible.

This waiver will allow Delaware to align efforts under RTTT and SIG in order to maximize LEA use of funds across programs while providing additional state supports through state regulation for our neediest Partnership Zone schools. This way both programs will work simultaneously and harmoniously to promote aggressive reform, to ensure each school has quality staff, and to raise student achievement substantially.

Delaware assures that it provided all LEAs in the State with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request and has attached a copy of that notice. To expedite its waiver request, Delaware will subsequently submit copies of any comments it receives from LEAs. Delaware also assures that it provided notice and information regarding this waiver request to the public by publishing a notice in state newspapers and by posting information on its website and has attached a link (http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/staff/si/TitleIPartA/TitleIWaivers/TitleIPartAWaiverRequests.shtml) to that notice.

Please feel free to contact me by phone or email at llowery@doe.k12.de.us if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.


Sincerely,

Lillian M. Lowery
Secretary of Education
Delaware Department of Education

LML/AEH


c: Carlas McCauley
Susan Wilhelm
Dan Cruce
Amelia Hodges
Lori Duerr

Delaware Folklore, DOE, DSTPs, and thensome...

Roadblocks...

Some years ago, when the railroad crossing on Rt 7 just past Christina's Eden Center, was under construction, a misguided driver decided to forego caution and went headlights first into a crater where there had once been a solid surface. 

Playing Chicken...

Now, the natives know that the purpose of those craters is to shelter the cervesas from the sun.  No one likes skunked beer! One summer some years back, "beer drops" (as they are affectionately referred to) sprung up all over Newark.  Neighborhood kids would hang out at Old Oak terminus in Newark, watching the Lazy Daisy Construction company take breaks in an umbrella-covered subterrainean refuge.  The kids made a game of it.  The ultimate prize:  The blue cooler.  No one ever won.  The construction workers who could drag out a mile-long repaving project for three months easy were like stealth secret agents if you ever got too close to the treasure.

The Department of Education...

Last Thursday, DSTP results were released to the school districts ... with an embargo that is being used to prevent locally-elected school board members from viewing the data including district, school, and/or state generated reports. The Embargo, itself, is an annual rite in DOE.  They want the data sanctified by the State Board of Education.  I can understand that, but there are other devices in play here, not the least of which is Race to the Top.  No Sir, this is not a normal year.  We have RTTT to contend with and its DeDOE-imposed deadlines that come due before the embargo is scheduled to be lifted on July 15th.  Most school boards will want to sign off on these plans, but based on the nature of the embargo, they will be denied by the Department of Education the ability to make data-driven decisions, the same decision-making process stipulated by the state's RTTT application and the districts' MOUs with the state.

Talk about roadblocks and playing chicken.  If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that there was something in that aggregated data that DOE doesn't want seen. By whom?  School boards?  By USDOE?  Should I surmise that this is another strong arm tactic by DOE to usurp local control from the publically elected boards?  Let's face it -- We - local members - don't serve at the pleasure of the Governor, we're not appointed;  we are elected to represent the public.  We take an oath to support public education and uphold the laws regarding it.  We're not paid.  Most do this job because they genuinely care about the direction of education.  I'm starting to understand why the Delaware Code stipulates that school board members cannot be paid.  And I can sum it up in two words:  competing interests.

The problem, as I see it, is that local boards are at the end of a long line.  The memo from DOE did not come to me, an elected official.  It was addressed to District Test Monitors and cc'd to everyone under the education sun, except board members.  I have in my possession an email directive from Delaware's Secretary of Education, Lillian Lowery, directing my board's employee - our superintendent - to notify "constituents/board members" that the data cannot be shared until the embargo is lifted.  Now I know that I am walking a fine line, and I am aware that my next statement will sound flat-out pompus, but the last time I checked, superintendents were employed by their boards, and not the Secretary of Education.  And perhaps I am erroneous, but I believe that it is the obligation of our Secretary of Education to provide the DSTP data first to the boards and only then to the superintendents.

There's a hierarchy at play here and DOE is distorting its role and the chain of command.  My opinion, of course. Now, if DOE wants Christina or any other district as its own, and wants the liability of employing its superintendent, then I suggest they need to invoke the revised code as far as dissolution of boards and receivership of districts.  And until they take that action, DOE is obligated to share DSTP data with boards immediately because their actions on this matter are preventing board members from upholding the oath and doing their jobs. 

Look, I just want to do my unpaid job well.  You have a tool I need?  You claim that you're collaborative?  Come on, come over, collaborate with me!  My lights are on.  Can you say the same?

------------------------------------------------
As for beer dops?  Did we ever find out what treasures lay in the bottom of those craters?  I'd tell you, but that information is EMBARGOED until further notice.

By Lesli Maxwell on June 1, 2010 6:59 PM

Michele's got the full list of states posted over at Politics K-12, so we can officially kick off our prognosticating on who the likely victors will be in Round 2 of the Race to the Top sweepstakes.

It's certainly not going out on a limb to predict that strong finishers in Round One are likely to be competitive again: Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, and Rhode Island, for example.

But let's consider what may happen with a couple of other, lower-profile applicants.

First, the big boy: California. The state crashed and burned in its first crack at Race to the Top, finishing a lackluster 27th out of 41 applicants. That performance nearly kept the state from bothering with a second-round application, but some pressure from Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan helped convince Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other leaders to keep the state in the running.

This time around, the state lined up a smaller number of districts—including mammoth Los Angeles Unified and universally-respected Long Beach—to push for bolder plans in those locales. Bonnie Reiss, Gov. Schwarzenegger's appointed secretary of education, helped enlist the Parthenon Group, the consultant behind Georgia's third-place finish in Round One, and one of three application gurus endorsed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. She also got several foundations, including Gates, to pay the Parthenon tab.

Reiss told me that Parthenon helped the state's Race to the Top team comb through every detail of the two winning states and strong finalists to pick out those features that garnered big points in Round One. What the group came up with in that all-important category of teacher and leader effectiveness is a plan to give those districts that have endorsed the state's Race to the Top application 13 months to create new teacher and principal evaluations that will, at a minimum, link 30 percent of job performance to growth in student achievement. That certainly goes beyond what the state had laid out for teacher evaluations in its first crack at Race to the Top money.

FINISH THIS STORY HERE

Published Online: May 26, 2010


I Was At-Risk, and I Remember What You Said
By Marsheila Natachee Ksor

Last month, I received something interesting in the mail from my old high school guidance counselor. She’s retiring, and had run across a group photo of students from TLC, an intervention program for at-risk students, who were visiting the state capital. The trip was a reward for TLC students passing all their classes and, yep, I was a member of the group—the dark-headed girl in the miniskirt, fourth from the left in that picture.

Today, I work at an alternative school for at-risk students, and that photo reminded me of how hard life is for poor kids, and why I started working in such a school in the first place.

I remember in elementary school how some teachers would get directly in my face, snapping their fingers and saying, “Earth to Marsheila!” because I tended to daydream. I don’t suppose they knew how much time I spent worrying about what mood my alcoholic father would be in when I got home. I don’t suppose it mattered either, but their comments embarrassed me and gave the other students yet one more reason to exclude me.

I also remember how, on test days, everyone was allowed to bring snacks and, since I had none, I just drew pictures of snacks on scratch paper. I remember spitting into my sweater once because I was so hungry my mouth wouldn’t stop watering; math was the last thing on my mind that day.

I remember one Christmas, during the required present exchange, the child whose name I drew cried because all I was able to bring was a box of used paper dolls. I tried to give her the gift I had received, but she wouldn’t stop crying. That was a terrible feeling—everyone else was opening up new gifts, and she was crying as the teacher attempted to console her. Requiring these present-exchange fiascos is about as unfair as costly homework projects—at least to kids whose parents are either unwilling or unable to purchase supplies.

Later, in middle school, I remember a few of my teachers and one assistant principal shaking their heads when I walked by and whispering things like “pity she’s from Arcadia,” “somebody should talk to her about washing her hair,” or “doesn’t she have a mom?” I wonder if they really didn’t know that I could hear them, or if they just didn’t care.

High school wasn’t any better. Although the teachers were more subtle in their disapproving looks, I knew immediately upon entering a class which teachers looked down on me and which ones didn’t. On one occasion, a school counselor posted a display on her door on which students were asked to write where they wanted to go to school. I scratched down that I intended to go to Wofford College, a small, prestigious private school nearby. To this, the counselor just shook her head and replied, “Now, Marsheila,” as if someone like me could never make it into a school like that.

Although, in retrospect, I know that the counselor was more concerned about the cost of the school, at the time, I interpreted her attitude as if she thought I wasn’t good enough for Wofford. But I ended up taking her advice and attending a two-year trade school for respiratory therapy, a career for which I was entirely unsuited. I transferred to Wofford three years later and graduated magna cum laude. Afterward, I went back to visit that guidance counselor and gloat a little, but she acted as if she had never expected anything else from me.

I have never put these experiences in writing before, and even now the memories sting. Perhaps the reason I feel compelled to give my testimony today is that my students are still being treated with disdain by those who should encourage and elevate them. They tell me so. One student said her regular school teacher told her that she would be pregnant by the time she was 16. I’ve heard about teachers rolling up their car windows when they see a particular student in the parking lot. I’ve heard about others who tell their students they should go ahead and drop out. And I’ve even heard about a social studies teacher who likes to rant in class about welfare and public assistance being a drain on the economy. How do you suppose his complaints make his poorest students feel?

Administrators, district officials, and even school board members are no less guilty. One of my students told me that a visiting board member looked at him “like gum on the bottom of his shoe.” I doubt this educator even realized that his facial expression was being scrutinized and interpreted, and I told the student to forget about the incident, suggesting that maybe the man just had gas. We laughed about it, but I knew exactly how that boy was feeling.

It seems as if some educators are oblivious to how deeply their words and behavior affect the children in their care. There have been numerous studies documenting the obstacles at-risk kids face that are inherent to school systems as they exist today. Compound that with the obstacles they face at home, and then add palpable educator disdain, and it’s no wonder these kids have such an alarming failure rate.

Some teachers and administrators may believe that their behavior is harmless—and it might be, to a kid who has a strong sense of self and a secure, stable home life. But to a kid who has already been chafed raw by life, sometimes words sting badly enough to leave lasting scars.

None of us should forget that our words or behavior could be the killing blow that puts an end to an at-risk child’s education ambitions. It’s something to consider, at least.

Marsheila Natachee Ksor is a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards-certified English teacher and the director of e-learning at an alternative high school in Spartanburg, S.C.